FGC pros and youtubers are asking developers to stop making fighting games easier

NeroPaige

Member
Jan 8, 2018
845
But there is one thing that is killing fighting games this generation for me: loading times.
EVERY SINGLE Fighting Game on PS4 takes an eternity to load. There is SO MUCH time that you are not playing - character select screen (SFV takes FOREVER to load), versus screen (loading, I know), victory screen - and then you have to find another match...
Definitely off-putting.

For the older fighting games on Fightcade you can start a next match in 10 seconds. All this delay nowadays is ridiculous in comparison. All it does is gives people more time to ragequit and put people off playing altogether.
 

Kouichi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
571
So when it comes to established franchises, I mostly agree with what Max is saying. I don't think it's totally worth appealing to casuals by dumbing down mechanics when it ends up alienating the hardcore audience. These fighting games should spend more time finding better ways to teach their mechanics and offer a variety of modes that allow casuals to come to grip with them in less stressful ways.

However, I disagree when it comes to brand new fighting games series like Granblue Vs. I believe developers should have the freedom to make their brand new series as simple, complicated, neutral heavy, combo heavy, etc. as they wish. I hate this notion that all fighting games need to be complicated. It's healthy for the genre to have a variety of titles that can appeal to casuals with their accessibility and the hardcore with their complicated mechanics. Like I love Dark Souls and do not believe it should ever be dumbed down (difficulty modes are a different story) but I would hate if the majority of the action rpg genre was as difficult as that game. As a casual player, this is a problem I've had with the fighting game genre. Games like Marvel and Guilty Gear can continue to be as complicated as they want, and I'm still willing to play those games, but it's good for the genre to offer more titles that players can more easily jump in and enjoy like Divekick, Fantasy Strike, and Smash Bros.

Another issue I have is that fighting game difficulty isn't as black and white s Max tries to make it here. Take Mortal Kombat as an example. I don't believe Netherrealm has ever said that removing some of the mechanics from X and making the game more neutral heavy was to appeal to casuals (correct me if I'm wrong). You can easily argue that the rushdown heavy nature of MKX makes it easier to play since you don't have to worry about footsies and can just blow through your opponent with all the shenanigans that game has. Footsie heavy games generally have less mechanics and are easier to grasp because of it but it also means that there is less room to spam your way to a win. From what I understand, Netherrealm just wanted to try a new take on Mortal Kombat. They knew it'd sell a ton of copies no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Dec 16, 2018
51
I’m not gonna lie, I think that dumbing down games is actually bad for long term community engagement. There’s a difference between accessibility and depth when it comes to fighting games and you can have both. At the end of the day, long term support and player growth are driven by factors that are necessary just ease of execution. Community is also very important and that’s a problem within the FGC. It’s a complex issue that isn’t just a couple of small fixes. There is a problem with dumbing down games and DBFZ is a good example. That game started off so strong until we started to see just how shallow characters were. Compound that with lack of character viability and middling dlc to kill a game. Theres obviously more, but DBZ has had the hardest drop off for FGs in awhile when you use evo as a metric. Better tutorials, better community and better mechanical understanding will help players moreso than just basic simplification
 

closer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,525
my take (and many others I think?) is that fighting games just need to put more attention/money on the aspects of the game that don't include playing someone better than you if they want to sell better. The amount of ppl who play one match online in fighters ranges from 30-45%, and the amount who play at least 10 matches dips even further, if we believe in trophy data. This can range from different modes/single player content to even the basic make-up of the game (smash for example is based heavily on being a 4 player party game to fuck around with). Tho in the end im pretty sure what we'll be getting is mtx focused content lol
 

Noctis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,683
New York City
I’m not gonna lie, I think that dumbing down games is actually bad for long term community engagement. There’s a difference between accessibility and depth when it comes to fighting games and you can have both. At the end of the day, long term support and player growth are driven by factors that are necessary just ease of execution. Community is also very important and that’s a problem within the FGC. It’s a complex issue that isn’t just a couple of small fixes. There is a problem with dumbing down games and DBFZ is a good example. That game started off so strong until we started to see just how shallow characters were. Compound that with lack of character viability and middling dlc to kill a game. Theres obviously more, but DBZ has had the hardest drop off for FGs in awhile when you use evo as a metric. Better tutorials, better community and better mechanical understanding will help players moreso than just basic simplification
Mind you it was preached as the new marvel and the savior of versus games LOL.
 

closer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,525
Mind you it was preached as the new marvel and the savior of versus games LOL.
ppl say the dumbest shit pre-release lol
mvci died before it even hit the streets....

ppl do have the wrong idea about dbfz in general I've noticed (how it plays, meta, etc.), but it's peppered in with enough truths that it's not the worst I guess. Like SD; yes it's kinda dumb, yes it has homogenized the game, no it's not as oppressive as you think and it does have to be used skillfully against better players

this isn't really on the quick to judge players totally tho ofc, since visually it looks ridiculous. but it is slightly annoying that people think Kazunoko is just throwing sd assist when he is doing them very purposefully
 

Danzflor

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,357
This debate reminds me about the whole "Soulsborn games should have an easy mode". As much as I understand the arguments pro players and influencers are making, at the end of the day, people should let devs do what they see is best for their product and what they want to accomplish with it.

At least, that's what the rational in me thinks, and it's the argument people always gives me when people ask for easier options on a Dark Souls game.

Personally, I'm one of those who truly enjoy watching high-level tournaments but can't make a combo on a fighting game even if my life depended on it. So, on that side, I understand accessibility. You see these guys doing amazing stuff in-game, but when you buy it and try to do something you get destroyed and frustrated in seconds. Also, as you grow older, you have to organize your time, and unless you are a hardcore fighting gamer who enjoys/plays nothing more, chances are you are not gonna get good anytime soon.

Accessibility has meant that fighting games are not a niche genre anymore, and the FGC needs to understand that. They as a community also need still to do a lot of growing up in terms of accepting new people, subgenres and games (hell, there's still people bashing Smash players). That said, if they claim for more complex mechanics, devs should also listen, cause more depth means more people engaged, I get/give you that. Now the difficult part is to reach the sweet spot and no idea how to get there.
 

Zissou

Member
Oct 26, 2017
466
If complexity/difficulty alone was a major deterrent, DOTA, CS, etc. wouldn't have the audience they do. I think fighting games' 1-on-1 nature scares people off.
 

SENPAIatLARGE

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,062
I’ll take easy combos if there are many combo paths and options. No matter how easy fighting games get, casuals will always bounce off because they don’t like losing 1v1. A fighting game with a hype roster and emphasis on 2v2 gameplay might do well imo. That way people can play and improve without necessarily hitting the training room
 

Noctis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,683
New York City
ppl say the dumbest shit pre-release lol
mvci died before it even hit the streets....

ppl do have the wrong idea about dbfz in general I've noticed (how it plays, meta, etc.), but it's peppered in with enough truths that it's not the worst I guess. Like SD; yes it's kinda dumb, yes it has homogenized the game, no it's not as oppressive as you think and it does have to be used skillfully against better players
ppl say the dumbest shit pre-release lol
mvci died before it even hit the streets....

ppl do have the wrong idea about dbfz in general I've noticed (how it plays, meta, etc.), but it's peppered in with enough truths that it's not the worst I guess. Like SD; yes it's kinda dumb, yes it has homogenized the game, no it's not as oppressive as you think and it does have to be used skillfully against better players
true, I enjoy the game but it’s kinda stale (the lack of multiple assists,etc)
 

closer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,525
If complexity/difficulty alone was a major deterrent, DOTA, CS, etc. wouldn't have the audience they do. I think fighting games' 1-on-1 nature scares people off.
I actually think this is pretty on the nose, I just dont have proof lol. But that's like the weird conundrum of fighting games to me. All the fighting games I've played recently ship with these ridiculously bad single player modes, story modes, whatever (havent played MK). I feel like they are packaged in mainly because they know they need to include it to sell, but somehow they are all like EGREGIOUSLY bad. how????? when you are making something that is meant to appeal to the majority that is purchasing your game how can you make stuff like sf, mvci, and dbz story mode??
 

Danzflor

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,357
Team based games let you learn as you play/get carried. Casuals HATE practicing
As a casual myself, more than hate, it's a time issue. 30+ years old with a normal life, maybe a family, an 8 to 6 job, last thing he wants to do is to practicing religiously daily to get good at a videogame instead of doing something else, more productive or useful. Is gonna depend a lot on if you truly love the game and want to commit to it.
 
The point is, most people don't seem to care about them being more accessible or easier to play. They're not looking to learn and/or get better, so it being easier is no incentive to them. That's not what they seem to be attracted by.
This is exactly the point being made right here.

SFV was, for want of a better term, "dumbed down" and made more accessible from the likes of SFIV. Yet you're here saying "this is too complex. I just want to have fun". Which means you, like the majority, are not interested in the actual mechanics that make these games 'easier' or 'harder'. People don't care, don't know, or don't understand. So why bother try when the majority can't even appreciate the difference?
^^^^^^^^
 

SteffK

Member
Oct 27, 2017
126
Unsurprisingly people are mistaking complexity for depth. Execution barriers are not "depth". Virtua Fighter 5 FS still puts its peers to shame in terms of depth but it is driven off simple directional inputs, 3 buttons (only 2 of which are attacks), and extremely lenient input windows for combos. The reason it has this reputation is because of actual mechanical depth, not the presence of execution barriers. Many in the FGC with highly visible platforms and large viewership don't even engage with the mechanically deep titles they have in front of them right now, so who are they to complain?

On the side of development, some studios need to reckon with the fact that much of what they are creating is destined to be niche no matter how many mechanics they remove. Guilty Gear's aesthetic choices, worldbuilding, etc are those of a niche product. With that in mind, stripping back mechanical depth makes absolutely no sense - they are better off taking their niche and growing it over time rather than thinking there's some magic formula of input complexity and mechanics that will make a broad audience engage with the contents of a typical Guilty Gear game.

One last point - many studios have been far too conservative with the formula of fighting games, which is part of why the genre has remained niche despite the massive success of mechanically deep titles like DOTA which have far higher information barriers than a fighting game even has to contend with, yet achieve much higher player and viewer bases. For example, Street Fighter V only attempts extremely limited and controlled application of status effects into the game (FANGs poison, Kolin's freeze effect, Dhalsim's flaming ground, etc), almost all fighting games besides Smash still do nothing interesting with player health, etc. They also do nothing to actually teach the game (the actual moment to moment game, not combo trials). Something as simple as summarising success rates for anti-airing, avoiding projectiles etc in postmatch, along with any kind of reward for actually improving your play, would be huge in terms of getting new players to engage instead of becoming frustrated or just mindlessly ploughing through braindead solo content.

I honestly think someone will come along and eat Capcom/Namco/Arcsys' lunch by releasing a fighting game that is far closer to something like a MOBA in terms of depth, and combines that with an aesthetic that is appealing to the mainstream, has no complex inputs, and offers a proper stat-tracking/progression system to actually show the player where their performance is improving/failing. None of it requires reams and reams of single-use solo content.
 

Stone Ocean

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,466
Street Fighter 2, Fatal Fury, Mortal Kombst 1&2 no crazy mechanics, watched and played 109's of hours and still found it engaging. But sure, make the barrier of entry higher so that way it can sell as well.as SFV
You mean those games that didn't need stuff like silly comeback mechanics or deleting entire character archetypes to be engaging for casuals and veterans alike? Why you don't say
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,062
Another problem is how bad tutorials are and how even good ones don't give players the real information they need in order to make informed decisions. I was doing a SFV tutorial where they teach you how to do certain combos, but.... they don't actually do that. They show what buttons need to be pressed to do that combo, and they show a video of a cpu doing the combo, but there were certain ones where I tried again and again to do and just could not figure out the timing needed for them to work. I'd have to go online and talk to people about it to really get it. And then there's just the fundamentals of how the genre works that, while obvious in retrospect, are not obvious to new players, like startup, active, and recovery frames which are different for every move on every character based on what that character needs to balance out its moveset. People are constantly wondering why they're moves aren't working even beyond command inputs, why something that seems like they should be able to punish out of block they can't actually. Lots of that kinda stuff that you don't see in other genres like shooters.

And on top of all that there's just general conceptual stuff that a tutorial couldn't really teach you anyway. Art of War type stuff that requires learning about just the theory of combat/competition in general. This stuff should technically apply to all games, but it seems to hit people harder in fighting games for some reason. I guess because of the intimacy of a 1v1 and the significant variation between characters, which requires more study.

I think this kinda of stuff is equally to blame for why fighting games have trouble with new players.
 

infinite

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,952
Unsurprisingly people are mistaking complexity for depth. Execution barriers are not "depth". Virtua Fighter 5 FS still puts its peers to shame in terms of depth but it is driven off simple directional inputs, 3 buttons (only 2 of which are attacks), and extremely lenient input windows for combos. The reason it has this reputation is because of actual mechanical depth, not the presence of execution barriers. Many in the FGC with highly visible platforms and large viewership don't even engage with the mechanically deep titles they have in front of them right now, so who are they to complain?

On the side of development, some studios need to reckon with the fact that much of what they are creating is destined to be niche no matter how many mechanics they remove. Guilty Gear's aesthetic choices, worldbuilding, etc are those of a niche product. With that in mind, stripping back mechanical depth makes absolutely no sense - they are better off taking their niche and growing it over time rather than thinking there's some magic formula of input complexity and mechanics that will make a broad audience engage with the contents of a typical Guilty Gear game.

One last point - many studios have been far too conservative with the formula of fighting games, which is part of why the genre has remained niche despite the massive success of mechanically deep titles like DOTA which have far higher information barriers than a fighting game even has to contend with, yet achieve much higher player and viewer bases. For example, Street Fighter V only attempts extremely limited and controlled application of status effects into the game (FANGs poison, Kolin's freeze effect, Dhalsim's flaming ground, etc), almost all fighting games besides Smash still do nothing interesting with player health, etc. They also do nothing to actually teach the game (the actual moment to moment game, not combo trials). Something as simple as summarising success rates for anti-airing, avoiding projectiles etc in postmatch, along with any kind of reward for actually improving your play, would be huge in terms of getting new players to engage instead of becoming frustrated or just mindlessly ploughing through braindead solo content.

I honestly think someone will come along and eat Capcom/Namco/Arcsys' lunch by releasing a fighting game that is far closer to something like a MOBA in terms of depth, and combines that with an aesthetic that is appealing to the mainstream, has no complex inputs, and offers a proper stat-tracking/progression system to actually show the player where their performance is improving/failing. None of it requires reams and reams of single-use solo content.
very good fucking posts. definitely agree about player progression systems and meaningful stat tracking
 

Platy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,644
Brazil
So wait, whats your argument here? you say roster isnt important and then list a bunch of games full of cameos or licenses
My argument is that roster is important, but it is not 90%

You don't need Pikachu, Cloud, Banjo and Sonic to sell huge numbers. You need a big roster, but you don't need the big names. Stage selection, single player modes, the noob friendliest that a platform fighter can give you...all are important

PSASBR had a shitty budget. Indies have bad budgets. And they all sold well for their budgets.

Smash has a huge budget and sell well for that budget.
 

SENPAIatLARGE

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
2,062
Street Fighter 2, Fatal Fury, Mortal Kombst 1&2 no crazy mechanics, watched and played 109's of hours and still found it engaging. But sure, make the barrier of entry higher so that way it can sell as well.as SFV
There was no online mode back then so people had no idea they were bad and could play their friends and family without understanding mechanics.
 

Pygrus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
631
Developers should really look at BlazBlue Cross Tag Battle for the perfect balance between intricate and simplistic mechanics. Initially the game can seem really shallow, but it has a ton of depth once you start realizing how the mechanics can be used with specific characters.
 

Lunaray

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,268
Unsurprisingly people are mistaking complexity for depth. Execution barriers are not "depth". Virtua Fighter 5 FS still puts its peers to shame in terms of depth but it is driven off simple directional inputs, 3 buttons (only 2 of which are attacks), and extremely lenient input windows for combos. The reason it has this reputation is because of actual mechanical depth, not the presence of execution barriers. Many in the FGC with highly visible platforms and large viewership don't even engage with the mechanically deep titles they have in front of them right now, so who are they to complain?

On the side of development, some studios need to reckon with the fact that much of what they are creating is destined to be niche no matter how many mechanics they remove. Guilty Gear's aesthetic choices, worldbuilding, etc are those of a niche product. With that in mind, stripping back mechanical depth makes absolutely no sense - they are better off taking their niche and growing it over time rather than thinking there's some magic formula of input complexity and mechanics that will make a broad audience engage with the contents of a typical Guilty Gear game.

One last point - many studios have been far too conservative with the formula of fighting games, which is part of why the genre has remained niche despite the massive success of mechanically deep titles like DOTA which have far higher information barriers than a fighting game even has to contend with, yet achieve much higher player and viewer bases. For example, Street Fighter V only attempts extremely limited and controlled application of status effects into the game (FANGs poison, Kolin's freeze effect, Dhalsim's flaming ground, etc), almost all fighting games besides Smash still do nothing interesting with player health, etc. They also do nothing to actually teach the game (the actual moment to moment game, not combo trials). Something as simple as summarising success rates for anti-airing, avoiding projectiles etc in postmatch, along with any kind of reward for actually improving your play, would be huge in terms of getting new players to engage instead of becoming frustrated or just mindlessly ploughing through braindead solo content.

I honestly think someone will come along and eat Capcom/Namco/Arcsys' lunch by releasing a fighting game that is far closer to something like a MOBA in terms of depth, and combines that with an aesthetic that is appealing to the mainstream, has no complex inputs, and offers a proper stat-tracking/progression system to actually show the player where their performance is improving/failing. None of it requires reams and reams of single-use solo content.
I agree with everything here.
 
Dec 16, 2018
51
ppl say the dumbest shit pre-release lol
mvci died before it even hit the streets....

ppl do have the wrong idea about dbfz in general I've noticed (how it plays, meta, etc.), but it's peppered in with enough truths that it's not the worst I guess. Like SD; yes it's kinda dumb, yes it has homogenized the game, no it's not as oppressive as you think and it does have to be used skillfully against better players

this isn't really on the quick to judge players totally tho ofc, since visually it looks ridiculous. but it is slightly annoying that people think Kazunoko is just throwing sd assist when he is doing them very purposefully
I feel it’s reallt important to note that player depth still exists within simpler and homogenized stuff. If anything being creative with a less complicated tool kit requires a lot of player skill and footsies, but different story. I will also say that the sentiment of “DBZ is new marvel” was carried well into its lifecycle. MVCI definitely deserved some flack, but seeing the game that was pushed as it’s killer/forced down folks throats as it’s killer turn into what it did is very disheartening.
 

Thorn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,702
People have already tried "Its a fighting game but a MOBA!"

It was not met with success.

MOBA's are successful because a casual player can get carried, or if they do lose, blame someone other than themselves. Getting blown up 1v1 is a bitter pill to swallow for the vast majority of people.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,211
It is an unbelievably lazy argument to say that people just can’t handle being beat one on one.

I think if people thought they were improving and having fun in the process, the discouragement of losing a lot would be somewhat blunted. Fighting games as a whole do a bad job of facilitating that feeling because despite often having high dexterity and knowledge requirements to do well it can be extremely hard to know if you’re actually better and why you lost.

Obviously execution barriers are only part of that equation but it obscures a lot of the subtle things that may be hampering improvement because if you whiff your Super it’s easy to attribute your loss to that instead of seeing how badly you used your normals the entire match.
 

Zissou

Member
Oct 26, 2017
466
It is an unbelievably lazy argument to say that people just can’t handle being beat one on one.

I think if people thought they were improving and having fun in the process, the discouragement of losing a lot would be somewhat blunted. Fighting games as a whole do a bad job of facilitating that feeling because despite often having high dexterity and knowledge requirements to do well it can be extremely hard to know if you’re actually better and why you lost.

Obviously execution barriers are only part of that equation but it obscures a lot of the subtle things that may be hampering improvement because if you whiff your Super it’s easy to attribute your loss to that instead of seeing how badly you used your normals the entire match.
A simple explanation is not necessarily wrong.
 
Feb 8, 2019
301
The video and main point wasn't even talking about execution barriers. Max outright said he's fine with simple execution. It's gutting options in the name of getting more people to play that is the issue.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
9,486
I honestly think someone will come along and eat Capcom/Namco/Arcsys' lunch by releasing a fighting game that is far closer to something like a MOBA in terms of depth, and combines that with an aesthetic that is appealing to the mainstream, has no complex inputs, and offers a proper stat-tracking/progression system to actually show the player where their performance is improving/failing. None of it requires reams and reams of single-use solo content.
How's For Honor doing these days?
 

Dinjoralo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,020
How's For Honor doing these days?
I'm fairly sure that's not a fighting game for the same reasons Smash isn't a fighting game. Arbitrary ones.
Being serious, I'd imagine the potential for For Honor being a proper competitive game got lost when Ubisoft tried to make it an e-sport, when it clearly wasn't balanced and had a serious turtling problem.
 

Illusion

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,142
Then there is me who sucks at arcade fighters. Make them easier and more accessible!

There is literally a shit ton of arcade fighters out there that are hard, with a huge learning curve consistent with all other fighters, give us a game that's not towards the hardcore crowd.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
9,486
I'm fairly sure that's not a fighting game for the same reasons Smash isn't a fighting game. Arbitrary ones.
Being serious, I'd imagine the potential for For Honor being a proper competitive game got lost when Ubisoft tried to make it an e-sport, when it clearly wasn't balanced and had a serious turtling problem.
To be fair, Ubisoft tried really hard not to call it a "fighting game" throughout it's entire marketing campaign.

"It's Rainbow Siege but with swords!"
 

A.J.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,010
I'm not a fighting game person, but I really liked GBFVS where the big moves were all easily accessible, but limited by cool downs. It made a lot of sense to me that crazy button inputs never did.
 
Oct 28, 2017
588
Then there is me who sucks at arcade fighters. Make them easier and more accessible!

There is literally a shit ton of arcade fighters out there that are hard, with a huge learning curve consistent with all other fighters, give us a game that's not towards the hardcore crowd.
What does that actually mean? Lots of fighters this gen have been simplified down or otherwise attempted to cater to more casual players.
 

RaiOh

Member
Nov 12, 2017
99
If they want to appeal to

Casuals/New players: They need some good solo content, nice graphics, easy inputs, a popular IP
To the FGC: Good mechanics, interesting characters, depth, new content through the years
A good Esport scene: A lot of money on the table and a Pro Tour (pro players), a fun game to watch (viewers)

I don't think it's actually hard to make a good fighting game, but most of the time there is always something missing or in conflict (accessibility=/=depth).
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
9,486
I'm not a fighting game person, but I really liked GBFVS where the big moves were all easily accessible, but limited by cool downs. It made a lot of sense to me that crazy button inputs never did.
The funny thing was that after awhile I ended up learning to use the technical inputs for certain moves because I want the instant cool down advantage.

But it was a very natural skill progression and not a hurdle at the start.

Plus I still use the Simplified command for DP and Charged moves.
 

DoubleTake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,835
I try to stay out of these threads nowadays because it always boils down to people who haven't the slightest clue of the how and why of FGs complaining about asinine shit like the DP/QCF motions being a relic of the past.

There are casuals who only want a cool roster, stages, single player stuff, and to be able to muck around with their friends on the couch.

There are casuals who will hop online for a few matches and get bopped by someone who has a better grasp of FGs than they do. Some will return and get better, some will leave forever.

And then there are casuals who will hop online, get bopped and then get upset about the genre having "arbitrary" barriers to entry in the form of its antiquated controls all the while not understanding why a DP motion is the way it is and telling veteran players that they are wrong. Asinine.

Devs should always design their games around the higher levels of play. Cater to the people who will actually engage with the systems and work to understand them. Why bother with the group who may or may not stick around, will not stick around to actually understand who to utilize the deeper mechanics, and who can't even be bothered to finish a tutorial.

Let them have Characters, Auto combos, Kombat towers, and Entitlement(kudos if you can spot the pun in this sentence).
 
Oct 28, 2017
588
I feel like they are only providing a learning curve or more ease to access to existing fighters, as opposed to being their own thing.
There have been numerous attempts to make new franchises specifically to cater to casual players. They tend to flail and die.

Fantasy Strike is the most recent example and is still in early access. I have severe doubts that it will get off the ground post-release.

I'm not going to object to better tutorials. A lot of the complaints about fighting game difficulty could be mitigated if new players were actually taught the universal rules of fighters like frame advantage, punishment, meaties, etc in an easily digestible way. I still don't believe that difficulty is a primary factor in sales within the casual market. Legacy, presentation and singleplayer content are all that matter.
 

lvl 99 Pixel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,807
Nonsense. Melee has more complicated input options at higher level play overall, but Ultimate has a lot more going on outside of that. More universal or unique options like footstools, burying, paralyzing, etc. A better ledge and off stage game with more interplay and less basic gimps. Parrying is a more well rounded feature than perfect shielding so players can capitalize on it in more reliable ways that the audience can actually comprehend. Not being able to tech grounded spikes leads to more combo set ups. Other attacks after a certain threshold are untechable, requiring defending players to be more active in their DI in order to make an untechable attack techable again. More unique and more viable characters/character types including far more interesting projectile interplay (like what we see from Link or Pacman) and more viable heavies. Ultimate equals or exceeds melee's depth easily, but does so via different means. Not to mention it also has the potential for complicated inputs like attack cancelling that will continue to be optimized and better implemented as time goes on.

Melee is great, but in no world is Ultimate lacking in depth in comparison to it. I'm not saying any of this to put Melee down, it's just that depth can come from a lot of sources, and the way Melee achieves that is very different from how Ultimate does, and it is not inherently superior.
Its too much work to type out all over again but I made a brief rundown here.
I didn't mention specifics like how nobody likes the buffering system in Ultimate or how floaty the characters are because im not trying to put other games down there, but when you say it has as much depth you're going to have a lot of people correcting you. I truly believe the skill ceiling for Melee might be the highest of any competitive game, but even the fundamental parts of the gameplay such as the general physics or the less simplified recoveries are significantly deeper than the other games in the series.
 
Last edited:

Ingueferroque

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
10,239
This whole "stop making _____ games easier" thing is just exhausting at this point. It's starting to feel like the ~cool~ stance to take when you want some gamer clout and attention from the same crowd that likes to bitch about "censorship" when their 20000 year old dragon goddess' tits get "nerfed" from a triple z-cup to a double z-cup.

Sure, there are a ton of valid reasons as to why this particular argument is being made, but the timing is just fishy.
How could you state this after the reasoned and detailed points made by the video example in the OP? What timing, is something else going on?
 

Astral

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,356
I’ll echo the sentiment that casual players simply don’t wanna get better. They just wanna win. Winning in fighting games is hard and takes a lot of work and that turns a lot of people off. There’s little immediate gratification in fighting games unless you genuinely enjoy the process of improving. I think most casual players don’t enjoy that and so they give up. Therefore, dumbing down fighting games is completely pointless. It won’t attract new players.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
9,486
I’ll echo the sentiment that casual players simply don’t wanna get better. They just wanna win. Winning in fighting games is hard and takes a lot of work and that turns a lot of people off. There’s little immediate gratification in fighting games unless you genuinely enjoy the process of improving. I think most casual players don’t enjoy that and so they give up. Therefore, dumbing down fighting games is completely pointless. It won’t attract new players.
If that's the case why did the Battle Royale genre took off?

In a game where out of 100 players there can be only 1 winner would surely lead to a much lower win rate compared to other games.
 

DoubleTake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,835
If that's the case why did the Battle Royale genre took off?

In a game where out of 100 players there can be only 1 winner would surely lead to a much lower win rate compared to other games.
This has been discussed ad nauseam in this thread. A BR has random elements that you can pin your loss on: Oh I just didnt find the right guns. You may have teammates: Oh my teammates sucked. And even then you have 99 other people who lost along with you so youre not alone. The comparison does not work in the slightest.
 

Artdayne

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,639
[
People have already tried "Its a fighting game but a MOBA!"

It was not met with success.

MOBA's are successful because a casual player can get carried, or if they do lose, blame someone other than themselves. Getting blown up 1v1 is a bitter pill to swallow for the vast majority of people.
That's not THE reason MOBAs are successful. I'd bet a far more important reason MOBAs are successful is because of the character growth that happens in a game which never happens in a fighting game. You actually level up and get powerful items the better you perform. It's also just kind of fun to play on a big map rather than a 2D plane.
 

Harken Raiser

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,520
That's not THE reason MOBAs are successful. I'd bet a far more important reason MOBAs are successful is because of the character growth that happens in a game which never happens in a fighting game. You actually level up and get powerful items the better you perform. It's also just kind of fun to play on a big map rather than a 2D plane.
Guilty Gear 2: Overture was unappreciated in it's time.
 

SapientWolf

Member
Nov 6, 2017
2,705
It is an unbelievably lazy argument to say that people just can’t handle being beat one on one.

I think if people thought they were improving and having fun in the process, the discouragement of losing a lot would be somewhat blunted. Fighting games as a whole do a bad job of facilitating that feeling because despite often having high dexterity and knowledge requirements to do well it can be extremely hard to know if you’re actually better and why you lost.

Obviously execution barriers are only part of that equation but it obscures a lot of the subtle things that may be hampering improvement because if you whiff your Super it’s easy to attribute your loss to that instead of seeing how badly you used your normals the entire match.
I don't even think truly casual players want to improve. They just want to win. And when they lose there's enough salt to put Morton's out of business. A player that truly cared about improving would ask the player that beat them for advice instead of throwing a temper tantrum. They have every opportunity to learn why they're losing but they ignore the tutorials, they don't learn the systems, and they don't go online for help. We have had almost 30 years of Street Fighter but it still feels like there are a lot of players that just don't understand how the game works on a fundamental level and probably never will.

Team based games are great for casuals because they can easily get cheap kills and feel pretty good about it without being forced to put in any actual effort in improving their skills. The online playerbase for games like For Honor or Mordhau are almost always healthier than traditional fighting games like Mortal Kombat, Tekken, or Street Fighter. Maybe it's a PC thing but I doubt it.
 

justiceiro

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,716
I think they just want challenging games, and are expressing their opinion. Don't really think it's about being a good deal for developers or whatever.